Gun store won't treat LEOs/etc. as if they are special

[The Heretic]

Gunfighter Tactical

Gunfighter Tactical is San Diego's best firearms manufacturer, gunsmith, and custom shop.

gunfightertactical.com

Read More

 

[DivCurlGrad72]

BCM has a similar policy:

As such Bravo Company's policy is that law enforcement officials and departments will be restricted to the same type of products available to responsible private individuals of that same city or state.

About Us

bravocompanyusa.com

 

[User 1234]

Barrett. LaRue.

 

[Hueco]

The trend has to start somewhere…but damn it'd be nice if Glock and Sig really stuck it to the man right about now.

 

[CamoDeafie]

The trend has to start somewhere…but damn it'd be nice if Glock and Sig really stuck it to the man right about now.

Can you imagine the backlash from LE agencies if Glock and Sig, and maybe even S&W, (hell even Colt would be amazing ) all said "we will no longer provide parts support or training or armorers to departments in these States (that have mag bans,rosters, and similar gun control laws)...

 

[SHPD_Retired]

I see no problem with the gun stores policy. It is as it should be.

 

[Hueco]

Can you imagine the backlash from LE agencies if Glock and Sig, and maybe even S&W, (hell even Colt would be amazing ) all said "we will no longer provide parts support or training or armorers to departments in these States (that have mag bans,rosters, and similar gun control laws)...

Can you imagine the backlash if the overwhelming majority of gun owners said "NO" to Glock and Sig until they did side with us?

I like Glock's design. It's why I own a few guns of similar make all sporting after market gen 3 parts. But no Glocks.

We live in a capitalist style economy - the Californian and New York elite are protected by gun companies that will not sell to Joe Americana in those states. Until the rest of us join in on the FucU Bandwagon…nothing changes.

 

[CamoDeafie]

Indeed. Some gun owners will still not buy anything Ruger after what Bill Ruger said publicly during the AWB.

 

[arakboss]

I would like Glock blue label pricing.

 

[TTSX]

I would like Glock blue label pricing.

You can get it. Just have to find a desperate person who needs rent money.

 

[GrayGoose]

I would like Glock blue label pricing.

Join GSSF. It's a pretty good deal.

 

[ZA_Survivalist]

As it should be!

 

[Koda]

Magazine suppliers need to step up...

 

[WillametteWill]

I haven't really gotten into the weeds (in this specific area) but 114 may actually be doing this.

a) The transfer of a firearm by or to a law enforcement agency, or by or to a law enforcement officer, private security professional or member of the Armed Forces of the United States, while that person is acting within the scope of official duties.​

This means if an LEO buys (tries to anyway) a gun that is not directly related to their "official duties" then they need the new permit. Off duty would be made a grey area unless the department has a policy that officers must carry while off duty (few do in my experience). To me, the way this is worded it would be a violation of law if this is avoided. Could be interesting.

 

[P7M13]

View attachment 1338498

Gunfighter Tactical

Gunfighter Tactical is San Diego's best firearms manufacturer, gunsmith, and custom shop.

gunfightertactical.com

Lots of great blog articles at that site.

 

[Yarome]

I haven't really gotten into the weeds (in this specific area) but 114 may actually be doing this.

a) The transfer of a firearm by or to a law enforcement agency, or by or to a law enforcement officer, private security professional or member of the Armed Forces of the United States, while that person is acting within the scope of official duties.​

This means if an LEO buys (tries to anyway) a gun that is not directly related to their "official duties" then they need the new permit. Off duty would be made a grey area unless the department has a policy that officers must carry while off duty (few do in my experience). To me, the way this is worded it would be a violation of law if this is avoided. Could be interesting.

Being so used to preferential treatment there is nothing stopping a LEO simply saying, "yes", when asked if the purchase is related to their official duties and no one could prove otherwise. Only those officers with a conscience would truthfully answer "no". There are simply too many that think, "I'm always on duty" and unable to make the distinction between what they think and what is, actually, directly duty related or not.

If it means having to apply for a permit.... their interpretation will always lean toward, "yes, official duty related."

Dollars to donuts!

 

[nammac]

I would like Glock blue label pricing.

Joining GSSF will get you that pricing, although I believe they limit how many may be purchased annually…

 

[jackrv]

I haven't really gotten into the weeds (in this specific area) but 114 may actually be doing this.

a) The transfer of a firearm by or to a law enforcement agency, or by or to a law enforcement officer, private security professional or member of the Armed Forces of the United States, while that person is acting within the scope of official duties.​

This means if an LEO buys (tries to anyway) a gun that is not directly related to their "official duties" then they need the new permit. Off duty would be made a grey area unless the department has a policy that officers must carry while off duty (few do in my experience). To me, the way this is worded it would be a violation of law if this is avoided. Could be interesting.

Needs to apply to ON duty also.. just saying

Jack

 

[Alexx1401]

Indeed. Some gun owners will still not buy anything Ruger after what Bill Ruger said publicly during the AWB.

Bill Sr was never very pro 2A, he just kept it hidden. When he let the mask slip that one time he paid for it and had to really try to walk it back. The current Co only has his name now. Family was bought out and kicked to the curb. Its why they make and sell so much stuff now that Sr would never have sent to market for the general public.

 

[nehalemguy]

I haven't really gotten into the weeds (in this specific area) but 114 may actually be doing this.

a) The transfer of a firearm by or to a law enforcement agency, or by or to a law enforcement officer, private security professional or member of the Armed Forces of the United States, while that person is acting within the scope of official duties.​

This means if an LEO buys (tries to anyway) a gun that is not directly related to their "official duties" then they need the new permit. Off duty would be made a grey area unless the department has a policy that officers must carry while off duty (few do in my experience). To me, the way this is worded it would be a violation of law if this is avoided. Could be interesting.

I would expect that after the State Legislature is done with BM 114 that there will be several portions of the measure cleaned up to address paragraphs such as that one.....and they won't be cleaned up to the benefit of average Joe citizen.

-E-